Donating to a political campaign is an important issue. Voters should have information about donations 鈥� who and how much 鈥� before they mark their ballots.
Candidates in sa国际传媒 municipal elections are required to file campaign financial statements 鈥� but only after the election is over. If voters could see who donates and how much to candidates before the election, it would help them make better-informed decisions.
The information is relevant. Campaign contributions are a gesture of support for a candidate鈥檚 platform and abilities, but they are not supposed to buy favourable treatment when the candidate becomes an elected official. Transparency of campaign finances helps ensure that doesn鈥檛 happen.
The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act stipulates that statements must be filed no later than 90 days after the general voting day, so the voting record of a mayor, councillor or trustee can be compared to donor lists to see if there are any correlations.
If that is deemed to be useful public information after an election, why is it not useful public information before an election?
Certainly, the required disclosure helps the public be on the alert for undue influence by well-moneyed special-interest groups, but it鈥檚 after the fact. If, three months into a term, you think your candidate鈥檚 motives are suspect, it鈥檚 too late. You are stuck with that person for four years.
That is not to cast a dark shadow over all campaign contributions. There鈥檚 nothing illegal or improper in donating to a candidate鈥檚 campaign. In fact, more people should do it 鈥� it鈥檚 taking an active role in democracy.
But regardless of whether a donor expects favours in return for a donation, people who make large donations expect to have access to the candidate. It鈥檚 a political reality that money is a powerful influence in elections. Donors are part of the political process 鈥� we should know who they are.
The issue has come to a head in Vancouver, where the two major civic parties have more or less been shamed into promising to reveal donor lists. At an editorial board meeting with the Globe and Mail, Non-Partisan Association mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe refused to release information about donors earlier than required by provincial legislation. He said it was crucial for the NPA to raise a lot of money, and revealing that information could hurt fundraising efforts.
Vision Vancouver, Mayor Gregor Robertson鈥檚 party, also refused to release the information.
It was a bit of a conundrum for LaPointe who, as a former journalist, should be firmly on the side of transparency. Perhaps that was a factor in changing his mind, as he later said the NPA would reveal who its contributors are.
That was followed shortly by a statement from Vision and Robertson that it would release its donor information.
It鈥檚 a step forward, one that should be emulated in Greater Victoria. The province has few restrictions on campaign financing, and the sa国际传媒 Liberals seem to have little appetite to change that, but candidates don鈥檛 need to wait for a change in legislation. Many candidates talk about transparency 鈥� making campaign finances public before the election would be walking the talk.
Pre-election disclosure would not need to have the same detail required by the post-election report, but candidates could reveal who their major donors were and how much they contributed, beyond a certain amount.
Various attributes are considered in assessing a candidate鈥檚 suitability for office, including experience, platform and character. It鈥檚 just as important to know who a candidate鈥檚 friends are.
Money plays an increasingly important role in elections. In the interests of open democracy, voters should know the source of that money.
